Most U.F.O. skeptics are not open to the evidence, page 3

Originally posted by Gazrok
(response to original post)

No, the skeptic says:

It MAY be a bird
It MAY be a weather balloon
It MAY be a kite
The person MIGHT be lying
The person MIGHT be mistaken
There MAY be a "natural" explanation

A DEBUNKER says the things you mentioned, and goes in with a set mind.
Skeptics (true Skeptics), try and keep an open mind, and see where the evidence takes them. Sometimes it fits the original hypothesis, sometimes it doesn't...

You forget to add to your list that a true skeptic will also say: "It MAY be an ET craft".

Still, well said. Although debunkers can be quite subtle - and unfortunately they don't tend to openly call themselves 'debunkers', which is rather inconvenient. LOL. Rather they pretend to be - and falsely call themselves - 'skeptics', hence the OP's misunderstanding.

This is why I have repeatedly tried, along with several others, to create posts and threads clarifying the vast difference between true 'skeptics' and 'pseudo-skeptics' ('debunkers' who pose as skeptics, as the OP mentions)

By clarifying the huge difference between skeptics and pseudo-skeptics (see the links in my signature), and making members familiar with that difference, we would have far less threads where 'skeptics' are wrongly targeted, because the posters of such threads usually don't mean to criticize legitimate 'skeptics' at all, but 'pseudo-skeptics', they just aren't familiar with real meanings of the terms and the attitudes they signify.

When numbers of closed minded debunkers - pseudo-skeptics - falsely call themselves 'skeptics', then people eventually come to think that 'skeptic' must mean closed minded debunker, which is the misapprehension I feel the OP is under. It's an understandable mistake to make, under those circumstances.

However, whenever I or anyone else tries to clarify this at ATS by discussing pseudo-skepticism openly and it's differences to legitimate skepticism, certain pseudo-skeptics - some of whom have made an appearance in this very thread

- get EXTREMELY angry and put forth titanic efforts and use every underhand tactic at their disposal to shut down and derail the discussion as quickly as possible, and they are expert at doing it.

Discussion of pseudo-skepticism makes some members very nervous indeed, and with good reason, because if more members clearly understood what it was then their cover as supposed 'skeptics' would be blown, and they would no longer be able to exploit this confusion and hide behind the skirts of legitimate skeptics, constantly sowing division in the forum and maintaining the so-called 'skeptic' - 'believer' divide.

It's a shame that more legitimate skeptics don't recognize this problem and help to solve it. However, the usual tactic of pseudo-skeptics when confronted is to scream "Skeptics are being attacked! They're attacking skeptics!' and, unfortunately, even many legitimate skeptics seem to fall for this deceitful rallying cry and fall for the artificial conflict that it creates.

Still, that's ATS for ya.

Want fewer threads wrongly attacking 'skeptics'?

Then clarify the vast difference between true skeptics and pseudo-skeptics.

(Now if Rex doesn't reply to this post, I'll be very surprised.

)

[edit on 1-2-2010 by Malcram]